Real data. Everything on this page is computed from actual games.
Spare Line Change
Numbers from
Hits and takeaways
final

BOS4

Boston Bruins

WPG3

Winnipeg Jets

Friday, October 2

Final in overtime · Canada Life Centre

The short version

What happened

Peterka wins it in overtime

Dylan DeMelo opened the scoring early in the first. Four different Bruins scored. The game was tied three times. JJ Peterka won it in overtime.

The chances were close to even, so this one could have gone either way. By our Swing measure, Kyle Connor had the best night of anyone, even in a loss. The Jets tried a line they hadn’t used before: Gabriel Vilardi, Isak Rosen and Viggo Björck.

What it means

  • Keep an eye onWhether the Jets keep that line together in Detroit on Sunday.
  • The previewOne of the preview’s two calls held.

Our pre-game read

The win chance our model worked out before the game, kept off the site until now.

We had this close to even (42% for Boston), and Boston came through.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice−4 points46%
Recent chances−1 points45%
Who's been playing−3 points42%
Back-to-back0 points42%
Our chance for Boston the morning of the game42%
Tonight's lineup−3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known39%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

We had this close to even (58% for Winnipeg), and it went Boston’s way.

Two even teams on neutral ice50%
Home ice+4 points54%
Recent chances+1 points55%
Who's been playing+3 points58%
Back-to-back0 points58%
Our chance for Winnipeg the morning of the game58%
Tonight's lineup+3 points
At puck drop, once the lineups were known61%

Recent chances: how much better each team’s chances have been than their opponents’ lately, with the latest games counting most. Who’s been playing: whether the players who dressed last time were stronger or weaker than the ones behind those recent games, so a star who is out or back counts straight away. Back-to-back: playing for the second night in a row. Tonight’s lineup: any change in who dressed since the last game. Only earlier games went into it, and the preview hinted at it in words without showing the number.

What the preview said, and what happened

Of the 2 calls the preview made, 1 held up, 1 partly did, and 0 didn’t happen.

  1. Before the game

    Swayman isn’t cursed against the Jets

    Since 2023-24, Swayman has been shaky against the Jets, well below his usual. Fans love a pattern like this, but we checked three seasons of them and they predicted nothing. Expect the usual Swayman.

    The call If Swayman starts, his save percentage lands closer to his usual .908 than to his .877 against the Jets.

    5 starts against Winnipeg: .877 save percentage · .908 against everyone else

    Held up

    J. Swayman stopped 30 of 33 shots (.909), against his usual .908 and his .877 against this team before tonight.

    .908
    Coming in
    .909
    In this game

  2. Before the game

    The Bruins roll four lines; the Jets lean on their top six

    The Bruins are one of the league’s best for depth, at the deep end; the Jets are one of the league’s worst, at the top-heavy end. Expect that gap to show.

    The call The Bruins spread their forward ice time deeper down the lineup than the Jets.

    Depth: Boston 2nd, Winnipeg 29th

    Partly

    On bottom-six share of forward ice time, Boston had 44% and Winnipeg 43%. Coming in, Boston was at 44% and Winnipeg at 40%.

    BOS 44% · WPG 40%
    Coming in
    BOS 44% · WPG 43%
    In this game

Each call is checked by a rule set before the game. Held up: the team reached their usual level. Partly: they fell short of their usual level but still beat the league average. When a call says one team will come out ahead, held up means they won by at least half their usual gap, and partly means they won by less. One game is a small sample, so a miss doesn’t mean the preview was wrong about the team.

Read the full preview as it stood at puck drop.

This season so far: 94 held up, 12 partly, 64 didn’t happen, out of 170 graded calls. See the track record.

Run it back

We replayed this game’s chances 100 times. Here is how often each team came out ahead.

Too close to call on chances

Played out 100 times with these chances, Boston wins 42 and Winnipeg 59, close to a coin flip.

42%
Boston: 33 wins, plus half of the 17 ties
59%
Winnipeg: 49 wins, plus half of the 17 ties

Boston had 48 chances worth 2.8 expected goals. Winnipeg had 48 chances worth 3.3 expected goals.

How it works: every shot in regulation that was on target or missed the net goes in as often as our expected-goals model says it should, and the game is played out 100 times that way. A rebound scramble counts as one chance, and empty-net shots are left out. A replay tied after regulation counts as half a win each, since overtime and shootouts are close to coin flips.

It doesn’t know about goalies, finishing skill or passes before a shot. It also favours the team that was chasing, because a team with a lead tends to sit back. Over the last three seasons, teams it gave 80% or more won about two games in three.

What the preview didn’t see coming

The parts of this game furthest from how these teams usually play, biggest first.

Broke the pattern: a team did the opposite of their usual habit. Further than usual: a usual habit, taken much further. Closer than usual: a usual strength or weakness that mostly disappeared. Out of character: a usually average team, far from average. Each is measured against the teams’ numbers before the game.

The numbers

How the game went, beyond the score.

BostonWinnipeg
Goals43
Shots on goal3033
Expected goals3.03.6
Shot attempts at 5-on-55948
Power plays0 of 21 of 3

Swing

How far each player swung tonight’s result, for his team or against it.

The biggest swings: K. Connor +1.2, C. Perfetti +1.1 and G. Vilardi +0.8.

Showhighlighting

The number is roughly in goals: what he added to his team tonight, or cost it. Tap a player to see where it came from. The label beside it is his report card from “Did they do their job?” below; L1 to L4 and P1 to P3 are tonight’s lines and pairs.

How Swing is worked outHide how Swing is worked out

Scoresheet: each goal is shared 40% to the scorer, 35% to the first assist and 25% to the second, plus a quarter of the expected goals of his own shots. A penalty drawn adds 0.16 and one taken costs 0.16, what a power play is worth on average; each faceoff won or lost moves it by 0.006.

5-on-5 counts most: expected goals for minus against with him on, half compared with league average (adjusted for score and venue) and half compared with his own team when he was on the bench, plus a smaller amount for actual goals. A player on a losing team can score well if his line held its own. Special teams: power-play and penalty-kill time compared with a league-average unit.

Company kept (counted inside 5-on-5): from every player’s 5-on-5 impact over the two seasons before, a player out with strong linemates against weak opponents gives a little back, and the reverse earns a little. Goalies: goals saved above expected. Empty-net shots and shootouts are left out. One game is a small sample: this says who swung this result, not who is better.

Did they do their job?

What each player is relied on for or better than most at, and whether he delivered.

Show
  • D. PastrnakBig night

    2 assists. A strong game, even though his usual jobs were quieter.

    Right wing
    22:04
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.5
    Shots
    4
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.1typical 7.3
    • ✓Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-56typical 5
    • ✕Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-52.3typical 2.3
  • H. LindholmDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 14, so it counts for more.

    Defense
    21:42
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.9
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill9.1typical 6.8
    • ✕Preventing chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 allowed with him on at 5-on-53.3typical 2.3
    • ✓Creating chances at 5-on-5 Better than mostexpected goals per 60 with him on at 5-on-53.4typical 2.2
  • N. ZadorovMixed night

    2 assists. A good scoresheet, but his usual jobs went quiet.

    Defense
    20:54
    G
    0
    A
    2
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    1.0–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    2
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill30.1typical 6.7
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 4
  • J. PeterkaOff night
    Right wing
    20:05
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.5–0.5
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.1typical 5.8
    • ✕Shooting Better than mostshot attempts at 5-on-52typical 4
  • P. ZachaOff night
    Center
    19:33
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.7
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    4
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 7.5
    • ✕Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 16typical 54%
  • W. BorgenOff night
    Defense
    19:32
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.9
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill12.4typical 6.9
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 2
Show 10 more Boston playersHide the other Boston players
  • M. GeekieOff night
    Center
    18:53
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    +2
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.8
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play4.2typical 7.4
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✕Getting to dangerous spots Better than mostexpected goals from his own shots at 5-on-50.08typical 0.11
  • C. CliftonOff night
    Defense
    18:35
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.9–0.6
    Shots
    2
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill27.6typical 6.4
    • ≈Hitting Better than mosthits2typical 3
    • ✕Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 2
  • F. MintenDid his job
    Center
    16:50
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill11.6typical 6.3
    • ✓Faceoffs Relied onfaceoffs won6 of 10typical 48%
  • J. AspirotDid his job
    Defense
    16:05
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.4–0.4
    Shots
    3
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    3
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits1typical 1
  • M. KhusnutdinovOff night
    Center
    15:55
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.2–0.5
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    0
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill7.8typical 6.1
  • E. LindholmMixed night
    Center
    15:53
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.7–0.5
    Shots
    5
    Hits
    1
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Power play Relied onexpected goals per 60 on the power play3.9typical 7.0
    • ≈Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won8 of 15typical 55%
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • J. HagensDid his job

    A goal from a player who scores in about 1 game in 6, so it counts for more.

    Center
    14:14
    G
    1
    A
    0
    +/−
    +1
    xGF–xGA
    0.8–0.5
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    2
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
  • S. KuralyDid his job
    Center
    11:02
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.1
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    6
    Blocks
    0
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill13.1typical 6.9
    • ✓Faceoffs Better than mostfaceoffs won5 of 9typical 52%
  • T. JeannotDid his job
    Left wing
    10:15
    G
    0
    A
    0
    +/−
    −1
    xGF–xGA
    0.1–0.2
    Shots
    0
    Hits
    5
    Blocks
    0
    • ≈Blocking shots Better than mostblocked shots0typical 1
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits5typical 2
    • –Kills penalties Relied onToo little time to judge
  • M. KastelicDid his job
    Center
    9:17
    G
    0
    A
    1
    +/−
    0
    xGF–xGA
    0.6–0.2
    Shots
    1
    Hits
    3
    Blocks
    1
    • ✕Kills penalties Relied onexpected goals per 60 allowed on the penalty kill44.7typical 6.9
    • ✓Hitting Better than mosthits3typical 2
    • –Faceoffs Better than mostToo little time to judge
How the cards are gradedHide how the cards are graded

✓ a typical night for him in the ice time he got (the level he reaches in about half his games). ≈ beat an average player at his position, a typical power play or kill, or his own team with him off the ice. ✕ neither. Power-play and penalty-kill results count half, since five players share them.

Huge night: a hat trick or four or more points. Big night: two or more points, or a goal from a player who scores in fewer than one game in five on top of doing his jobs. Rough night: no points while the other team had 70% or more of the 5-on-5 chances with him on (xGF–xGA). Plus-minus never sets the level. A shorthanded goal counts as two points. Points never fully cover for jobs that went badly: with his jobs off, a huge night reads big and a big night reads mixed.

Judged only from games before this one; 5-on-5 rates adjusted for score and venue. One game is a small sample: even a strong player misses a typical night about half the time. Both teams: 31 ✓, 11 ≈, 23 ✕.

Somewhere new

Things they aren’t known for, far beyond their usual pace.

A night this big would happen less than one game in fifty at his usual pace, and is at least twice what an average player at his position would manage.

In net

Each goalie’s night: the goals he stopped beyond what the shots were worth, and the dangerous and routine saves.

  • J. SwaymanDid his job
    Goalie
    62:25
    Shots
    33
    Saves
    30
    Sv%
    .909
    xGA
    3.6
    GSAx
    +0.6
    Dangerous
    3/4
    • ≈Saving more than expected goals saved above expected+0.6typical +0.9
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✓Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance27 of 29typically saves 27 of 29
  • S. SkinnerOff night
    Goalie
    63:21
    Shots
    30
    Saves
    26
    Sv%
    .867
    xGA
    3.0
    GSAx
    −1.0
    Dangerous
    3/4
    • ✕Saving more than expected goals saved above expected-1.0typical +0.2
    • ✓Dangerous shots saves on shots with a 15%+ chance3 of 4typically saves 3 of 4
    • ✕Routine shots saves on shots under a 15% chance23 of 26typically saves 24 of 26

Every goalie has the same three jobs, judged against his own earlier starts (✓) and an average goalie (≈). Huge night: a shutout on 25 or more shots, or 3+ goals saved above expected. Big night: any other shutout, or 1.5+. Rough night: 2+ goals worse than expected, or pulled early after three or more.

Empty-net shots are left out. Expected-goal models can’t see passes before a shot, so a goalie beaten by cross-ice passes looks worse here than he really was.

Team pages: Boston Bruins · Winnipeg Jets